How MIT Became the Most Important University in the World

And why Harvard—Harvard!—is scrambling to catch up.

Last November, with great fanfare, Harvard celebrated the opening of its sparkling new $20 million Innovation Lab. A soaring 30,000 square-foot testament to contemporary architecture built right into the heart of the Harvard Business School, the I-Lab represents something profoundly new for the university: a full-throttle effort to transform itself into a leader in the increasingly important world of tech entrepreneurship. The goal, both simple and ambitious, is to bring together the world’s best and brightest young entrepreneurs, to nurture them in a stimulating and collaborative environment, and to help them transform their ideas into real-world businesses. “Gathering great minds under a single roof” is how Harvard’s president, Drew Gilpin Faust, described the mission of the I-Lab at the opening ceremony, “so that they can become great together.”

Tech entrepreneurship is the new sexy. It’s what legions of promising teens and twentysomethings are crazy for today, and Harvard wants in on the action. Sure, the university can claim two of the great tech entrepreneurs of the age, Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates, as its own. But they had to drop out of Harvard in order to transform their world-changing ideas into reality. “Zuckerberg did Facebook over our dead body,” says Joe Lassiter, the faculty chair of the I-Lab. “The commitment to [entrepreneurship] at this level, and across the university, is quite a new thought.”

True to form, Harvard has been touting the creation of the I-Lab as a revolutionary development, as a stop-the-presses, here-we-come moment of change not just for the university but also the world of higher education. But the thing is, it’s not. Harvard is actually nearly a quarter-century late to the world of tech entrepreneurship, and as it scrambles to get into the game, it’s finding itself in an uncomfortable position, not leading the charge, as it would like to, but desperately playing catch-up to its crosstown rival, MIT.

In many ways, the I-Lab is actually a derivative enterprise, clearly based on the Martin Trust Center for MIT Entrepreneurship, which since 1990 has been nurturing tech entrepreneurs and churning out an astonishing number of startups. “You can see that Harvard copied MIT,” Bill Aulet, the managing director of the Trust Center, and himself a Harvard alum, told me recently. “We’ve been doing entrepreneurship for a long time, and now Harvard is finally coming over to our way. But MIT has never been better. This is our time.”

Indeed it is. Everybody’s suddenly sweet on MIT. This past July, speaking in Boston at the Global Business Travel Association, Bill Clinton described the university as having the “best technology-transfer program in the country,” tops at turning student ideas into blockbuster businesses. It’s hard to disagree. Between 2000 and 2006, MIT graduates started more than 5,800 companies, and the numbers have only been rising since. The Institute produces more patent applications than any other single university in the world, with 179 in 2011. MIT’s entrepreneurial impact is so great that, according to a 2009 study conducted by the founder of the Trust Center, active companies created by its alumni bring in a combined revenue today of as much as $2 trillion. That would make those companies the equivalent of the 11th-largest economy in the world.

Those in the rankings business are also falling over themselves to praise MIT. This past August, Forbes named the Institute the second-most-entrepreneurial college in the country, and that same month, after taking into account such factors as the potential earnings of graduates, Newsweek’s the Daily Beast named it the nation’s most affordable college. Then in September came the best moment of all. In its annual ranking of the world’s great universities, QS, a London-based education-consulting-and-research firm, moved MIT above Harvard—and named it the best in the world.

Ash Martin certainly never wanted to go to Harvard. Why would he? In his view, Harvard spits out CEOs, bankers, lawyers, and moneymen. That’s so 1990s. / Photo by Jesse Burke

Around the Web:

Please be respectful of our online community and contribute to an engaging conversation. We reserve the right to remove impersonators or personal attacks, threats, profanity, or flat-out offensive comments. By posting here, you are permitting Boston magazine and Metro Corp. to edit and republish your comment in all media.

omair

“active companies created by its (MIT) alumni bring in a combined revenue today of as much as $2 trillion. That would make those companies the equivalent of the 11th-largest economy in the world” sums up the entire debate!!!

Adrian Meli

It is pretty incredible how few schools have focused on entrepreneurship while so many have been focused on creating a well rounded liberal arts education. Maybe it is a sign of the times but I would guess these entrepreneurship programs will be long lasting. Working on creative enterprises can be incredible learning experience so nice to see the innovation in higher education.

Kwame

I wish you showcase some hardworking and smart young ladies participating in this program.

http://www.brennanzelener.com Brennan Zelener

Abso-freaking-lutely.

Tom Weingeist

Copying is the strongest form of flattery. Good to have two such great institutions competing for the best – MIT and Harvard whatever the order…among the academic “swimsuit” competitions in ranking. Go Cambridge

AugustineThomas

(Sorry for the late response.)
Stanford is the top university in the world, although these distinctions are meaningless and only matter to amateurs and idiots. Harvard and MIT (along with Stanford and other “elite schools”) have more money and train more people. That’s why the companies founded by their alumni make more revenue. There are 7 billion people. You can’t fit all the smartest people in the world into Stanford, Harvard and MIT. They’re at institutions all over the world.
I used to think the same way until I became a bit more involved in academia and recognized that the smartest guy in the field is usually not at Harvard, MIT or Stanford. (Truly intelligent people don’t like the idea of concentrating all the best and brightest minds in one place where they can create an echo chamber.)

I would also note that Harvard and MIT will continue to decline with the rest of the schools in the Northeast and Stanfords will continue to arise in the rest of the country as people keep moving south and west. (Northerners might have to prepare for a day when there is a more prestigious university in North Carolina, Georgia or Texas than in Massachusetts or New York.)

SC

I was an undergraduate at Harvard and I agree with this article’s claim that MIT is more culturally suited to and has a better track record in tech entrepreneurship than Harvard (and probably will hold this lead for the near future). However, the claim that this implies MIT is a more important university than Harvard represents a serious misunderstanding of these two universities. First, this article has essentially reduced the entire purpose and goal of a university to churning out new tech companies. Nowhere does it mention that the humanities, social sciences, arts, and professional schools have any bearing on the quality of a university. Unlike MIT, Harvard is not a technical institute and should not be judged as one. Second, this article mistakenly uses the number of new tech companies founded to gauge success in tech entrepreneurship. Given that Harvard students are far more likely than MIT students to pursue careers in government, law, business, and basically any non-engineering field, of course Harvard students will create fewer tech start-ups than their MIT peers. Nevertheless, Microsoft and Facebook attest to the success of those who do choose this route. Third, the article implies that Harvard’s inferior status in tech entrepreneurship relative to MIT represents a failed attempt to compete on this front. In truth, Harvard has historically made conscious decisions not to focus its endeavors on tech entrepreneurship, instead cultivating an incredible intellectual atmosphere where knowledge is sought for its own sake, not because it will lead to new companies. As someone familiar with the more pragmatic cultures at MIT and my current institution, Stanford, I can attest to the presence a far more vibrant, diverse, intellectually driven culture at Harvard. Given that Harvard’s endowment is more than triple that of MIT, if Harvard’s goal were to become an engineering and entrepreneurial university, it could, but this has never been and will never be its direction.

Bobyscus

MIT – best in engineering. Harvard – best in medicine.

Together – the sky is the limit.

Sid K

This article is misguided on several fronts:
First of all, an article about tech entrepreneurship with no mention of Stanford? I get the impression that far from researching the real “story” here, the author wanted to tell a particular MIT vs. Harvard story of his own, and that’s the one he told come rain or shine.

Second: If you’re going to talk about competitors in high tech entrepreneurship, you should be comparing MIT to the leader in this area, Stanford ( http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/october/innovation-economic-impact-102412.html ) — not to Harvard which barely even has an engineering program, as other commentators have pointed out. The author presents it as if, somehow, Harvard and MIT are the only universities in the world and are therefore automatically competitors in all areas. The scope of human knowledge is vast — and certainly individual universities don’t focus on all aspects of it. That’s why you have Tech schools, liberal arts schools, law schools.

And finally, the bottom line — do your research.

Ken K.

I agree with you Sid. I am an MIT Alum but I’m quite shocked that Stanford was not mentioned at all in such an article about tech entrepreneurship. An article comparing MIT and Stanford on this topic would have been the best.

http://www.olivernewthgraphics.com/ Oliver

It’s Boston magazine, of course it’s going to just discuss Harvard and MIT. They’re discussing the global position of these two local universities, which it is fair to say is top-of-the-league for both establishments. Of course you’re right – Stanford too is a leader – but in the context of this article’s audience it’s pretty much (though admittedly not completely) irrelevant.

Bradmeister007

Let’s not forget the headline of the article, “How MIT Became the Most Important University in the World.” If we’re talking about “the world,” then it makes no sense for the article to have only compared two universities based in Cambridge, MA.

Adi Mittal

I agree with Sid above, Stanford is totally leading both MIT and Harvard in terms of tech entrepreneurship.

For Omair above, yes and Stanford alumni companies create a combined revenue of $3 trillion. Check out: http://www.stanford.edu/group/wellspring/ for companies started around Stanford in the Valley from Google, HP, Yahoo, to Cisco.

Make a list of all your top tech companies and you’ll see.

peckave

Sounds like some jealous people above. Get over it. MIT now is the place to be for the new century!

Us “jealous people” need no convincing — MIT has been an unbelievable place to be and will continue to be so in the future. But it’s misleading for the article to portray MIT and Harvard as apparently the only universities that matter, especially when it is a fact that Stanford leads both of these universities in the specific area being discussed. And that’s really the issue — universities aren’t just black and white better/not better than each other. Most universities tend to specialize in certain areas. No one would claim Georgia Tech or Michigan are the best liberal arts schools, for example, but they’re easily among the top engineering schools in the world. Similarly, making the case that MIT is “better” than Harvard should involve a lot more than a discussion about only tech entrepreneurship (which, certainly, is important. but it’s not all there is). And the case for MIT being the “most important university in the world” should involve more than tech entrepreneurship, where in that area alone it is indeed not the leader. I’m sure the case can be made — just not like this.

Janice

@SC
Despite its name, MIT is not merely a technical institute. It incidentally ranks #1 in overall social sciences in THE, has a top 5 business program, and excels in many areas outside of STEM. Of course, they do have a science oriented slant to them, cuz it’s you know MIT.

Yeah, the article is narrow-minded. Seems like it’s saying that if you top Harvard in one way, you’re suddenly better than every other university in the world in every which way.

Jeanne Martin

It seems like the Big New Thing is actually the Same Old Thing, but with better PR — a bunch of men pursuing technological innovation to line their own pockets. Though I commend the field for diversifying into men of color, I would bet good money that these new entrepreneurs are for the most part the children of privilege, who have the financial support and connections to attend MIT, make nice with VCs (usually white men).

Show me a subset of these bright young things who are trying to recast the same old paradigm into something new, and I’ll eat my hat.

Jessica

As a female alumna of MIT, I am very proud to say that its undergrad ratio of men to women is pretty much 50-50. The other good thing about MIT is that it has no preference for people with connections or “people of privilege”. There was a joke in my high school that anybody who applied to Stanford as a legacy got in (and in my three years at that high school, that was true); I don’t mean to bash Stanford, but that’s not the case at all at MIT. Granted, it’s an expensive school just like any other private institution, but the bulk of my friends there are from lower-income families.

Also, MIT may not have as many social science programs as Harvard, but it does have some really excellent ones, especially philosophy, linguistics, and creative writing.

Finally, there’s probably a simple explanation for leaving out Stanford. This article was written by Boston Magazine, so the author was likely just looking at the two local giants as they vy for the top spot on numerous rankings lists. No injury to remote giant Stanford intended.

Having gone to MIT both undergrad and PhD, I can tell you that the vast majority of people come from poor and middle-class backgrounds. 90% of undergrads get financial aid (60-70% institutional, others federal/outside).

Also, no child of privilege will do a science PhD.

Juris

It is still to be seen whether MIT’s “push” strategy and “teaching” entrepreneurship is going to work (which world changing start-ups have come out of MIT as of late?) for something that is art more than science. As Paul Graham puts it here: http://paulgraham.com/startupideas.html “Entrepreneurship” is something you learn best by doing it.

John

Nice article reference Juris. And to that point, Entrepreneurship is probably best taught by those that have been Entreprenuers (See Babson!).

http://www.facebook.com/people/Anne-Hunter/711262 Anne Hunter

DropBox, just to mention one.

David

There is nothing innovating or interesting about DropBox. This guy (Drew) will have to run this boring company for at least couple of years. Look at Youtube videos of their employees – in the videos they are doing all other things than sharing their passion to this boredom.

preferthetruth

MIT is home to Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology Dr Richard Lindzen. He is a leading denier of global warming caused by man made effects. He is also a leading advocate promoting the idea that cigarette smoking does not cause lung cancer.

RAM500

If the thought police are less active at MIT, that is another plus.

David

Any idiot could be an entrepreneur. The best research occurs in Harvard. MIT is good, definitely better than Yale or Columbia University but not as good as Harvard.

Manish Bhatt

lol -_-

jack

Any idiot can not be an entrepreneur, you need to have balls
and smarts.

Gurbachan

I have regularly visited and interacted with Harvard and MIT but have no vested interest in either. MIT is open and interactive while Harvard is closed and aloof. Do a test yourself. Write to any professor in MIT and Harvard on any issue or idea and firstly see whether you get a reply and secondly judge on your experience you get in each case. The culture is so different.

AugustineThomas

“And MIT kids are by far the best. They’re smart, articulate, covered in tattoos—they’re cool and hip and very different. Their clothes are edgy. And they’re all starting companies.”

What a stupid line. This is exactly the type of attitude that makes you hate Harvard.